If it is over the definition of primary source documents, you've posted a link and stated the fact that what are considered secondary documents now can be considered primary source documents pre-1910. That's certainly a reasonable argument, but my statement in discussing the two was confined to the modern definition.
If the quarrel you are soliciting is over dating, I will also concede that what are now considered primary source documents such as birth certificates were not available in all states until about 1910. But they were available in some states and territories by the late 19th century. I know this because my grandfather's territorial birth certificate is of that vintage.
Finally, if you are soliciting a quarrel because you feel the Mormon Church's genealogical database is 100% tainted because they are continuing a long tradition of presenting U.S. Presidents with their genealogies and Obama has yet to present a primary source document, then you must necessarily argue:
#2 - My 'quarrel' has nothing to do with dating. It has everything to do with presenting a family history without ever having obtained a first generation primary source to prove the foundations for that family history.
Look at it this way, if I went into a passport office to receive an official passport and refused to support my contention that I am an American citizen by providing them with all necessary primary source documentation, tell them to just trust my word on the subject, I would be laughed out of the office. Ditto with the D.A.R. Why should the Mormons now get a pass simply because the supposed family history is 'the one'?
#3 - So yes, my issue is the Mormon Church. And yes my argument is your link is tainted because without that primary source document, i.e, birth certificate, no one knows squat about Obama's history - family or otherwise. And furthermore the Reitweisner website agrees with me. The very first sentence includes the following..."should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft", or did you miss that part???? Without Obama's primary source document birth certificate it cannot and never will be anything resembling authoritative. THAT was my point. And your #2 'chain of custody' argument means absolutely nothing in proving parentage. It merely proves who raised him.
All we know is Stanley's family history, whether or not she is in fact his MOTHER is subject to controversy. Ditto with daddy dearest.
#4 - What the LDS should have done is refuse to honor their long tradition of presenting U.S. Presidents with their genealogies until Obama released his birth certificate and were able to VERIFY it. They missed a golden opportunity. No other U.S. President thus honored has an unproven background and history swathed in mystery. Their decision to go ahead with this mystery genealogy violated every #1 genealogical rule in the book which is include the source! If there is no source, there is no history. Refusing to do this tradition in Obama's case would have been precedent setting, it would have brought this issue completely into the mainstream, and they would have upheld their reputation as top notch genealogists. Now they are nothing more than rank amateurs aiding and abetting a fraudulent President along with the fawning media. That was my 'quarrel'.
And frankly if you don't like it - tough rocks. From now on I intend to inform other genealogists that the LDS is now not completely trustworthy and that every resource at their disposal (INCLUDING ALL THE FAMILY HISTORY LIBRARIES) is to be double checked for accuracy.